On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 04:16, Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > On 7/16/19 9:00 AM, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 06:54, Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 12:26, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >>> On 04/07/19 12:13, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 11:26:53AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > >>>>> CC'ing Stefan & Paolo for a non-ARM view on this... > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm not familiar with the various clock smoothing techniques > > >>>> implemented > > >>>> in QEMU and KVM, but this looks okay given that Linux guests expect > > >>>> this. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, even KVM applies a minimum period of 200us to the x86 LAPIC timer. > > >> > > >> Can we please merge this so guests can boot on 4.1? > > > > > > Cédric pointed out this lacks my reviewed by. I had not provided it in > > > the past as I wondered if we could come up with a better fix. However, > > > I consider this a good fix for 4.1, and if sometime finds time to > > > further rework the timer model in the future then we can do that work > > > later. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> > > > Tested-by: Joel Stanley <j...@jms.id.au> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > > HI Peter, > > Is this one still in your queue?
Applied to target-arm.next, thanks. -- PMM
